SHARDA NATH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition wants quashment of the letter dated March 30,1981 issued by the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority, bearing No. F.3(133)78- CS/DDA whereby a sub lease regarding plot No.C-70, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. She has further prayed that peaceful possession over the said plot be handed over to her.

(2.) Facts which led to the filing of the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is the wife of one Prakash Nath. She is working as a lecturer in Indian Penal Code ollege, Delhi. Plot bearing No. C-70, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 800 sq.yards ( hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed plot' for the sake of convenience) was allotted to the petitioner vide sub lease deed dated July 5,1973 ( vide Annexure B). The said perpetual sub lease deed was duly registered. The disputed plot was earlier allotted to respondent No.4 and a perpetual sub lease deed in respect thereof was executed in his favour. Subsequently the said sub lease was terminated by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The said fact was communicated to respondent No.4 through a letter dated May 21,1973 ( vide Annexure D). A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Hony. Secretary, Maharani Bagh Co-operative House Building Society ( hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.3 in order to facilitate the reference) with a request to send a proposal for allotment of the said plot which had fallen vacant to the members who were on waiting list. Shri R.C.Sharma, Executive Officer, conveyed approval of the Lt. Governor, Delhi for the allotment of the plots available to the members who were on the approved list of the respondent No.3 in the order mentioned therein. The disputed plot i.e. C-70, in the said list was allotted to Shri Satnam Shah and plot No. B-41 was allotted in the name of the petitioner ( vide Annexure E). Subsequently the disputed plot was allotted in the name of the petitioner which she accepted under protest ( vide Annexure E). A perpetual sub lease deed in respect of the disputed plot was executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 by way of premium for the execution of the sub lease deed in her favour. Respondent No.4 is thus in wrongful and unauthorised possession over the abovesaid plot. The possession over the abovesaid plot has so far not been handed over to the petitioner despite several letters written to the respondents in connection therewith. The petitioner was informed vide letters dated June 13,1974 and November 6,1974 from the office of the Lt. Governor, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) that the original allottee i.e. respondent No.4 had moved the High Court and the matter was as such sub judice before the said Court. Hence the possssion could not be delivered. The petitioner later on came to know through the letter dated March 30,1981 ( vide Annexure A) that the sub lease deed in respect of the disputed plot had been restored in favour of the respondent No.4 and the sub lease deed executed in her favour had been cancelled, though the matter was still sub judice. The action of the respondent No.2 in cancelling the perpetual sub lease in respect of the disputed plot in favour of the petitioner is illegal, void and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner was never given any hearing before the cancellation of the said perpetual sub lease in her favour. Thus the cancellation of the said lease in her favour was in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. A lease once cancelled, which existed in favour of respondent No.4 in the instant case, could not be revived and restored.

(3.) Respondent No.4 who is the main opponent has put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds: that he is the original allottee of the disputed plot and a perpetual sub lease deed was executed in his favour on July 17,1965. He has since then been in possession over the said plot. He raised construction thereon consisting of two garages, a bath and W.C. on the ground floor and two rooms, bath and a verandah on the first floor alongwith a staircase. He also got constructed a boundary wall alongwith the main gate on the said plot. The perpetual sub lease deed was wrongly and illegally determined vide letter dated May 21,1973 ( vide Annexure D). The alleged determination of the lease is illegal and mala fide and void ab initio. He challenged the said illegal termination of his sub lease through a writ petition, being C.W.P. No. 774/74, Dharam Chand v. Delhi Administration and others. The said writ petition was admitted and his dis- possession was stayed. The respondent made representations to the authorities before the filing of the said writ petition and even during the course of the pendency of the writ petition. On subsequent verification by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, the termination order was revoked and the sub lease was restored vide letter dated March 30,1981 in respect of the disputed plot in his favour. He was, however, ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 48,704.00 on account of the restoration charges and by way of penalty for delayed construction. The respondent No.4 deposited the said amount under protest and without prejudice to his rights. Immediately on the abovesaid cancellation of the sub lease in favour of the respondent No.4 the disputed plot was allotted to one Satnam Shah, vide letter dated May 22,1973 ( vide Annexure E). It is also manifest from the said letter that plot bearing No. B-41 was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed as to how the sub lease deed in respect of the disputed plot was executed in her favour in the above circumstances. The execution of the said sub lease deed in favour of the petitioner is wholly illegal, invalid and void.